R/C Tech Forums

Go Back   R/C Tech Forums > General Forums > Electric On-Road

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-07-2010, 01:08 PM   #1
Tech Addict
 
Barry White's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: HEAVEN
Posts: 720
Default Front Wheel Drive Rules Proposal

With some new FF cars coming out, let's speculate some rules before it gets out of hand:

First of all I think these cars should be up to scale so no ugly body's come in to play. 180~185mm wide and realistic WTCC styles and small spec wings like the real thing. You don't need big wings here.

Maybe mandatory plastic chassis and dampers or at max glassfibre sheet with no cut outs (cheaper tooling) and manufacturer spec. No 2mm, 2.25mm, 2.5mm,... One chassis for al circomstances. We need a cheap category. Now every single category you have carbon fibre. This would be real stock as it should be.

Stock motor only. Like mini there no point in putting a high perf motor in an FF becouse the only thing you gonna get is wheelspin.

Steel srews only.

Transmission parts from the outdrive to the wheel must be steel.


Last edited by Barry White; 04-20-2011 at 09:39 AM.
Barry White is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2010, 02:23 PM   #2
Tech Fanatic
 
kentech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 868
Trader Rating: 5 (100%+)
Default

Something along the lines of...bodies have to be super realistic (Tamiya style realistic) Super 2000 (WTCC) down to the wing and position of wing, and wheelbase have to be adjustable (as it is on the FF03 - 257/245/233mm) to accomodate different REALISTIC bodies. Wheels have to be spoked and realistic.

The rest someone else can think of....
__________________
kentech.wordpress.com
kentech is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2010, 02:45 PM   #3
Tech Addict
 
Barry White's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: HEAVEN
Posts: 720
Default

Realistic body's are much more important than dish wheels. There are plenty of real touring/rally cars that used them. Also it is easier for a spec tire manufacturer if he only makes a dish wheel.








Last edited by Barry White; 09-12-2010 at 10:07 AM.
Barry White is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2010, 02:45 PM   #4
Tech Apprentice
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 80
Trader Rating: 1 (100%+)
Default

im hoping tamiya will be releasing more bodies.

even better re releasing old [email protected]
tpsolid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2010, 02:58 PM   #5
Tech Elite
 
sosidge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Bristol, UK
Posts: 3,865
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry White View Post
With some new FF cars coming out, let's speculate some rules before it gets out of hand:

First of all I think these cars should be up to scale so no ugly body's come in to play. 180~185mm wide and realistic WTCC styles and small spec wings like the real thing. You don't need big wings here.

Maybe mandatory plastic chassis and dampers or at max glassfibre sheet with no cut outs (cheaper tooling) and manufacturer spec. No 2mm, 2.25mm, 2.5mm,... One chassis for al circomstances. We need a cheap category. Now every single category you have carbon fibre. This would be real stock as it should be.

Stock motor only. Like mini there no point in putting a high perf motor in an FF becouse the only thing you gonna get is wheelspin.

Steel srews only.

Transmission parts from the outdrive to the wheel must be steel.
I think your rules are too restrictive. Excessive restrictions just push people away from the class, or ends up increasing the amount people will spend on non-restricted parts, or a hauler full of different chassis to see which one works best. Have you seen the parts people buy to go racing in "spec" Tamiya classes? They have more money invested than I do in my "exotic" full-fat touring car.

What the USVTA rules have achieved is more realistic. Spec tyres, an approved list of bodies for the scale look (at standard TC dimensions), and a slow motor combination. At that level, carbon fibre and titanium screws make no difference.
sosidge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2010, 03:08 PM   #6
Tech Fanatic
 
akura2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Paramount, CA
Posts: 810
Send a message via AIM to akura2 Send a message via Yahoo to akura2
Default

Why not just follow RCGT rules?... they are already established, and the only difference is the chassis configuration (4WD versus FWD)
akura2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2010, 03:14 PM   #7
Tech Addict
 
Barry White's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: HEAVEN
Posts: 720
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sosidge View Post
I think your rules are too restrictive. Excessive restrictions just push people away from the class, or ends up increasing the amount people will spend on non-restricted parts, or a hauler full of different chassis to see which one works best. Have you seen the parts people buy to go racing in "spec" Tamiya classes? They have more money invested than I do in my "exotic" full-fat touring car.

What the USVTA rules have achieved is more realistic. Spec tyres, an approved list of bodies for the scale look (at standard TC dimensions), and a slow motor combination. At that level, carbon fibre and titanium screws make no difference.
Now every category is unlimited besides the motor. Parts must be cheap to be a spec class. USVTA is more of what can we do with what we have. It is still a TC with all the hop ups you have. A fast motor in an FF is just waste off money.
I think their is to little difference in categories right now.
VTA
Stock 13.5
Stock 17.5
Mod
Stock foam 13.5
Stock foam 17.5
Mod foam
...
All the same, handles the same (ok some diff between foam and rubber but U know what I mean) looks the same and costs the same.

When somebody comes to the track U must be able to tell him. This is spec, only simple FWD, cheap car, not to fast and very close racing.
Barry White is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2010, 04:36 AM   #8
Tech Champion
 
tc3team's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 6,151
Default

I would simplify the class by allowing rubber or foam tyres only, not both if that's possible.

For simplicity, rubber would be a preferred choice surely? Buying a tyre truer to get the tyres down to optimum size sounds expensive...

Or am I missing something here?

I have no interest in the class myself, merely thinking about keeping it simple if the class is deemed in general terms a good thing to have
__________________
Fusion Hobbies / www.horshamrc.org

The wife stops me being sane and the r/c stops me from going insane....
tc3team is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2010, 08:08 AM   #9
Tech Addict
 
Barry White's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: HEAVEN
Posts: 720
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tc3team View Post
I would simplify the class by allowing rubber or foam tyres only, not both if that's possible.

For simplicity, rubber would be a preferred choice surely? Buying a tyre truer to get the tyres down to optimum size sounds expensive...

Or am I missing something here?

I have no interest in the class myself, merely thinking about keeping it simple if the class is deemed in general terms a good thing to have
No foam!
Barry White is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2010, 10:43 AM   #10
Tech Master
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,920
Trader Rating: 1 (100%+)
Default

EZrun 17.5 (or SP equivelant)
only replica bodys
1 tyre type


this needs to be an easy to control , cheap and good fun class

ths i feel at the moment is sadly missing from Touring Car racing at the moment
sidecarphil1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2010, 11:22 AM   #11
Tech Elite
 
t0p_sh0tta's Avatar
R/C Tech Elite Subscriber
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 4,863
Trader Rating: 35 (100%+)
Default

If there were a "stock" class I would definitely get back into on-road.
t0p_sh0tta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2010, 11:30 AM   #12
Tech Elite
 
Rick Hohwart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,935
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by akura2 View Post
Why not just follow RCGT rules?... they are already established, and the only difference is the chassis configuration (4WD versus FWD)
+1
Rick Hohwart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2010, 11:57 AM   #13
Tech Elite
 
niznai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: All over the place
Posts: 2,940
Default

I think given the fact that you're talking about FWD cars this is spec enough. These cars are inherently limited in their performance so anything outlandish would be indeed a waste of money. That's why you don't need to spec motors. Let everybody run whatever they want and they'll see it makes no difference very soon. As you pointed out, it is very easy to over motor a FWD car so I think in a very short time, people will just stop trying and settle to whatever works best and that'll just be equivalent to speccing the class.

Personally I don't think anymore than a 21.5 is necessary in these cars, except perhaps on some of the larger, more open tracks (we had an experienced driver run a fully loaded TA03F with a 17.5 in our 21.5 class and he didn't win).

Tires and all that is just not going to make an important enough difference and problems with supply, club rules, etc will just override any spec.

About wings, I think this may be counterproductive (rather than redundant and off-putting). I have raced my YR-F2 a few times and I think with a TC style wing it would cut down a bit of lift-off oversteer in fast corners.

My opinion is only weight, ride height and FWD are necessary specs. The rest is intrinsically limited.

And yes, I agree with the point made above. Have a look in the mini thread and you'll see people spending crazy money on their cars - all race legal - but not any faster (or necessary).
__________________
Team Greasy Weasel

The best upgrade to any car is some driver skill.
niznai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2010, 11:59 AM   #14
Tech Regular
 
masterhit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Michigan
Posts: 475
Trader Rating: 15 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by akura2 View Post
Why not just follow RCGT rules?... they are already established, and the only difference is the chassis configuration (4WD versus FWD)
Word...

Just have a weight difference. IFMAR still has a weight differential between FWD and AWD. A 100 grams is a good chunk of weight and it would be an awesome on-track dynamic to see which could be best utilized.

I would love to race FWD again. I cut my touring teeth on a FWD Tamiya in the early '90s, even the stock TCS race back in Detroit against a bunch of 4wd.

Mike Slaughter
masterhit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2010, 12:37 PM   #15
Tech Apprentice
 
Ejection's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 81
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tpsolid View Post
im hoping tamiya will be releasing more bodies.

even better re releasing old [email protected]
That would be nice since my old FF Tamiya Civic body is trashed and I can't seem to find a new one.
__________________
XX, XXT, XX4(X2), XXX4, FF01, RS4, and a Slash
Ejection is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -7. It is currently 06:03 PM.


Powered By: vBulletin v3.9.2.1
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Advertise Content © 2001-2011 RCTech.net